Give Youths Sentenced As Adults A Second Look Later

In Connecticut you must be 18 to vote, serve on a jury or enter into a contract.

The law recognizes that adolescents are less equipped to make important decisions than adults are. Yet in one area, state law fails to distinguish between children and adults. Connecticut sentences people to spend the rest of their lives in prison for crimes they committed before their 18th birthdays. Kids who break the law must be held accountable, but we cannot give up on the possibility that a still developing young person will reform. Justice and financial responsibility both demand a more thoughtful approach.

A "second look" bill in the General Assembly offers the possibility of parole for people who committed crimes as minors. Hundreds of people in Connecticut are serving lengthy sentences for crimes they committed before the age of 18. About 50 of those prisoners are serving terms of 50 years or more — effectively life sentences — most with no chance of parole.

The bill does not mandate that these inmates be released — or even that any of them be released. It provides a means for the Board of Pardons and Paroles board to take an informed look at whether continued incarceration serves the public interest. The proposal calls on the board to take up these cases using more stringent criteria for release than it is required to apply in ordinary adult cases. The bill is hardly a free pass. Inmates would have to serve 60 percent of their sentences or 12 years — whichever is longer — before even qualifying for a hearing.

It is a more limited proposal than laws in some other states. For example, West Virginia just passed a law that would give juveniles the opportunity for parole after no more than 15 years. In Connecticut, an inmate could wait as long as 30 years under the proposed legislation before becoming eligible for a hearing, because 60 percent of the sentence is going to be far longer than 12 years in most cases.

Because the parole board would apply stringent criteria and scientific risk assessment tools, only the prisoners most likely to be successful on the outside would qualify. Furthermore, parole supervision involves ongoing accountability after release, which can include drug testing, electronic monitoring and mandatory treatment.

Current sentencing law is at odds with the recent U.S. Supreme Court's Miller v. Alabama decision, which struck down mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles. If the legislature does not take action, sentences will be challenged in court. Litigation can be prolonged and unpredictable for victims and families. Furthermore, the parole process ensures victims a chance to be heard.

Finally, there's money. It costs nearly $35,000 a year to incarcerate a person in the state's prisons. Connecticut taxpayers spend almost $9 million each year imprisoning people who would be affected by the bill — without any review to determine if they pose a threat to public safety.

The strongest argument, however, does not involve dollars and cents, but the possibility of redemption. Every major religious tradition recognizes that humans can change and research shows juvenile offenders are particularly malleable and capable of transformation.

While it does not detract from the seriousness of their crimes, many of these offenders imprisoned as children have completed courses and treatment programs, performed many duties within the prisons and demonstrated exemplary behavior. Having entered as directionless kids, many are now redeemed men and women ready to contribute to the community — rather than be a draw upon it.

But, really, there is nothing remarkable about that. Kids grow up. They change. We have always known this to be true. Now, there is a large and growing body of science that demonstrates just how much brain development occurs during and after adolescence. This consensus helps explain why none other than conservative leader Newt Gingrich wrote California Gov. Jerry Brown a letter urging him to sign legislation providing for review of youths sentenced to life without parole. Just like the California legislation, which is now law, the second look bill is a modest step and puts Connecticut's law in this area on firmer scientific and legal ground.

Marc A. Levin is policy director for Right on Crime, a conservative advocacy group in favor of reforming the criminal justice system, and director of the Center for Effective Justice at the Texas Public Policy Foundation in Austin.